8. I always find it tiresome.

10. I don't give 2 shits.

I'm not a believer. But this country is definitely a country of believers. The vast majority of people in this country are religious. That's just the way it is. I accept it and move on. Its not like anyone is trying to force me to be something I'm not.

140. ^^ Oh Noes. The Religious people are being persecuted again! ^^

Give me a break. Catered to at every turn during election season, in Congress, by the Media and local businesses. There's a reason that America stays so Christian... a massive propaganda campaign has been waged for centuries here. So when a few atheists or non-believers call out the idiocy of pushing religion during government events or in government policy despite the forefathers' strong attempts at Separation of Church and State, you need to stop whining and crying about victimization. Christians are the LEAST victimized group in this country. They control EVERYTHING. In our previous Presidential Election, our candidates felt the need to go to a fucking church with fundie Rick Warren and pronounce who loved God MORE.

And you might be able to write off yesterday as a one off, if they didn't open every day in Congress with a Prayer, if Washington didn't push for prayer in schools or want public money to fund Christian Private Schools or if their Department of Defense wasn't allowing weapons manufacturers to put bible verses on weapons used against Muslims or if they weren't indoctrinating soldiers into Christianity in the military ranks....

So yes, this was one event but it was a microcosm of the rest of the situation here in America.

43. +1

36. I'm tired of it in general...

...but some of this ceremonial shit...well, you just gotta let it slide.

There's another thread somewhere on DU where someone posted that they changed the channel when Battle Hymn Of The Republic came on. Like they weren't going to change the channel when the holy-joe said his prayer, or when The Prez put his hand on the bible, and "so help me god", and "god bless America", and everything else that's part of the show.

So yeah, I'm tired of it. I don't like it. I'm sure as hell disappointed that we as a culture haven't progressed beyond this childish hocus-pocus. But we is where we is, kids.

85. The multiple posts of gripes are verging on the disingenuous, for me.

93. I might agree that I'd prefer a 100% secular ceremony

But this is not the place to pick a fight. Hell, how many of these folks realize there is an invocation at the begining of business in every level of government? They are sincere, remove them from insert city council here...start there.

38. Nope, didn't bother me. I was focused on the history & beauty of it. nt

39. I found it off-putting and exclusionary.

In a most disgusting way. I know Barack Obama is religious, and that's fine with me. But the inauguration is a civil ceremony, not a freaking church service. There is absolutely no need for all these prayers. They just did another before the luncheon under the Capital Rotundra.

It's all crapola. If people want to pray, they are free to do so. But it does not belong in these strictly civil proceedings.

And I don't give a shit whether Washington had a prayer or not. That would have made him wrong as well. Thomas Paine is rolling in his grave.

50. Do you mean...

...that it would been inappropriate to frame the inaugural in such religiosity if it hadn't been that January 20, 2013 was a Sunday? Which was the sole reason why Barack Obama was administered an oath Sunday, and on Monday.

His presidency ended at midnight Sunday, January 20, 2013. If he had not taken the oath officially on that date, the US would not have a president until he took the oath today. That is why when inaugural day, January 20, is on a Sunday the president is officially inaugurated that day, and then the public inauguration is a mere symbolic echo.

The most important questions here might very well be:

1. What's wrong with inaugurating a president on Sunday? Especially since it is going to be inevitably wrapped in such disgusting religiosity?

2. What would Jewish citizens think if the inauguration was on Saturday? I ask this question with tongue in cheek. Since Christians are the ones who make the first day of the week the seventh day of the week. Maybe the majority of this country is Christian, but this is by no measure a Christian country.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that forbids the oath of office happening on Sunday. The fact that Barack Obama, and other presidents before him, took the actual oath on that day speaks volumes.

If I were elected president and my inaugural day fell on a Sunday, that is the day I would do the public ceremony.

Fuck this Sunday exclusion. It's just a day of the week, like every other. For many, there is no difference, even many religious people.

71. Symbolism should divest itself of symbolism.

"Religion shouldn't be a part of a secular transfer of power (or a reaffirmation of power as is the case of a second term)."

Ie., Symbolism should divest itself of symbolism. The imaginary should deny the imaginary. Many wholly make-believe constructs (politics and economics) should never recognize the existence of other make-believe constructs (religion) because that would be silly/exclusionary/too imaginary...

121. Thank you for your concern.

133. So they can have their religion

as long as it's in a basement and never ever mentioned in public. The Obamas should have a priest hole in the White House, lol. I don't know what dictionary some of you are using, or what Constitution you're looking at, but you have absolutely zero right to live free of other people's--including the President's--references to their religion.

58. My dream on MLK day is that religion will someday be abolished from our....

government. It has no place and it is offensive and dangerous to celebrate a "christian", "muslim" or "jewish" agenda. Until that day finally comes I'll just have to take the slap in the face that my fellow Americans feel free to deal me.

60. I remember JFK's inagural address in 1961.

the "ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country" speech.

I was 10 years old at the time,
and couldn't recall any god, deity, religion, or churches being mentioned at all.
So I looked up the text of the speech,
and found that I was wrong.
JFK DID mention "god" 3 times.

Mention #1, in paragraph 1:

"For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forbears prescribed nearly a century and three-quarters ago.

Mention #2, in paragraph 2:

"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

Mention #3, in the closing sentence:

"With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

I wouldn't call that speech full of "Religious Crapola"
In fact, THAT speech was about as Non-Religious as it is possible to get.

Those in this thread insisting that ALL inaugurals are a God/Religion Love Fest,
really should go read JFK's Inaugural Address.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

62. I'm actually amused bvar. Its not more or less religious imho from past inaugurals.

So those who are positing that it is, or isn't, are amusing to me. I don't see anyone really making that argument though.

What SOME DUers are saying is that its a shame that there has to be (or is already included) so much religiosity at all. That it should be a secular transfer of power and that the demonstrable religious aspects should be left off.

Its definitely very low on the scale of things to complain about today. Its just DU doing its thing. All in all, it was a lovely ceremony. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. President Obama's speech completely rocked - it was everything I wished it would be.

Looking forward to a great next four years. Thanks for the JFK references. I loved them.

122. Obama in particular has to tread very carefully here, what with the constant

FALSE accusation of being a muslim. He knows he would be unwise to give the christofascists any ammunition against him in that regard. And going secular would make them go ballistic (probably literally).

Nothing Obama or any other person in the inauguration said did anything harmful to nonreligious Americans.

149. we were celebrating two things: the inauguration of a president and the life of great man

And that great man happened to be a man of faith, a minister of his church whose life was informed by and guided by his religious beliefs.

And nothing in the Constitution requires us to sweep under a rug the fact that he was a man of faith. Unless of course you think it was a violation of church and state to even make the birthday of a minister a federal holiday.

82. Obviously, separation of church and state isn't important

88. I expected it, so there is no way to be disappointed

I do think even religious people need to recognize that the government is secular and that the government never mentioning God is a good thing, in recognition that it is secular and that if the government never mentions religion, then religion is safe from the government. They fail to understand that their very religious freedom is based upon the fact the government does not recognize their religion either.

98. Didn't bother me because I did not watch it

I knew there was no place I could watch without getting pissed off. Not necessarily with the religious stuff although that was part of it. What's worse is the politicizing and labeling of every aspect of the ceremony. "Liberals" will like a certain statement but "conservatives" will object to it. Or vice versa. As if every issue and everybody can be pigeonholed into a neat little category.

I sure as hell was not going to watch on Fox or CNN and I knew MSNBC would have that drooling idiot Chris Matthews on so that was out too.

It was the first warm day we've had in about a month so I spent the day outside pruning, irrigating and getting our vegetable garden ready for planting.

Seems I missed an inspiring speech from the president but I'm sure he'll make more of them.

101. I do too.

103. So did I and

I'm a student of Buddhism. All that seems like "fakery" to me and is certainly not needed at a GOVERNMENT sponsored event like an inauguration. I think an appropriate "moment of silence" at the ceremony and at lunch would have been enough for people of ALL faiths (or non-faith) to think for one moment what this event really means in a democracy. And, to silently wish/pray for our president and other elected officials to be responsive to ALL its citizens in the coming 4 years.

166. Close your ears when the prayer part comes. I am not religious and somehow found it ok to listen

167. I don't really care one way or the other, but I find the utter lack of empathy astonishing.

This is the equivalent of our government talking about any minority being subhuman, beneath consideration. Sure it went on for decades for them as well, and just like the atheists, they were expected to shut up and take it because they're a small minority.

It's times like this that I really think the world would be far better off without humans.

134. Obama = Taliban. Good contribution dude. nt

146. Delusion is delusion, who it is that holds the delusion doesn't matter.

If you honestly believe in the existence of some omnipotent, invisible sky-daddy that is capable of make everything better, then relying on this fantasy being to do so becomes a viable possibility, and that is not a good thing. It allows for both inaction when action is required and abdication of responsibility, neither trait has any place in governance.

162. Whatever, no. n/t

150. And yet it was exactly that: an honest belief in some "omnipotent sky daddy" that enabled and

inspired Martin Luther King to become the great leader of the civil rights movement. And why so many other great leaders of the civil rights movement came out of religious traditions. Explain that "inaction" thing to me again.

152. You give credit where none exists and proceed from that false premise.

Your reply states that these people's actions were due to their religiosity without any evidence that those people would not have taken those actions without it.

It credits religion with the good done by people, but ignores the bad things done in the name of religion, which is typical of the religiously deluded. Good things are due to God, bad things are the fault of someone/thing else.

155. Now you're just embarassing yourself.

Not sure why you are so quick to show off how little you know about Dr. King, but that's your choice. If you would like to actually learn more about him and how important religion was to his civil rights activism, I suggest you read up on Howard Thurman, the book Jesus and the Disinherited, and Dr. King.

For the record, I'm not a Christian, and never have been.
Also for the record, good things are done by religious people and bad things are done religous people. Sometimes religion, or that person's understanding of religion, is very influential in why they do good things and sometimes its very influential in why they do bad things. And of course, not being a religious person doesn't make you a good person or a bad person either.

In Dr. King's case, it was undeniably an important positive influence despite your apparent wish to ignore that facet of his life.

And finally, for the record, I don't think that Dr. King would have had the same influence and impact had he not presented his views from the perspective of a minister. Churches were at the heart of the civil rights movement because churches were at the heart of the African-American community.

158. Sorry if you feel insulted. But you are pretending to know things you don't know about Dr. King.

Might Dr. King have been a great civil rights leader without being a minister? Maybe. Certainly not impossible. But the point isn't that he might have achieved great things without being directly inspired by his religious faith. The point is that he WAS directly inspired by his religious faith and thus it is an important part of who he is and what he accomplished.

I have many friends that were first inspired to get involved in politics by John F. Kennedy. Might they have gotten involved anyway? Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that they were inspired by JFK and that his inspiration plays a large part in who they are and what they think about government service and it would be presenting a less than full picture of their lives to pretend otherwise.

161. I'm not insulted at all, but that was clearly your intent.

You are still trying to argue that same false premise.

MLK's leadership and speaking skills were what enabled him to what he did.

I think that, judging by his background and his own words, we can be pretty sure that he would credit his faith with his achievements, but that credit doesn't alter the reality that it was he, the man, that did those things, not some phantom wielding his magical wand from on high. Now, why not wonder how many other potential MLKs didn't achieve what he did years earlier because their faith lead them to leave it up to God?

My point was twofold and remains. The absence of belief in a myth does not preclude accomplishment, but it does open the possibility of either relying on that myth to take the necessary actions or for abdicating responsibility for actions taken and that's the problem with this mass delusion that increasingly blurs the line between faith and government.

We have, more now than ever before, an enormous population that believes in the literal existence of a delusion, and further, they believe that we must place the future of our nation and probably the world into the non-existent hands of these delusions. Pandering to insanity is a bad idea and not that long ago almost everybody understood this.

135. Meh.

Had he not sprinkled his speech with at least SOME references to religious stuff, many people would have lost their minds. Given all the stuff we're trying to accomplish, I think in his shoes I might have tossed some in too, just to keep the resistance from our own side to a minimum, and I'm an atheist.

I would think that to find it disappointing I would have to have assumed it wasn't going to be there in the first place, which is a mighty big assumption.

138. I didn't see any of it, and skipped it on purpose but

it sounds like it was almost a church service in the preaching and religious stuff. That would have been very off-putting to me.

The main reason, is it perpetuates the notion that "GOD favors the United States" and "We are the country GOD backs" This is something I have a huge problem with, because it goes hand in hand with jingoism and hyper-patriotism and leads people to think no matter what, our country is doing the right thing and we are always noble in our actions. I see this attitude a lot, even on DU.

Especially when we have morally bankrupt policies of assassinating anyone in the world we choose to, and the innocent victims that are killed is just considered unfortunate collateral damage. Moral bankruptcy should not be backed up and sanctioned by supposed divine approval.